IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Conservative Plans to repeal H&S legislation
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David Brede Can I ask the Chief Executive and/or the President to demand urgent talks with the Leader of the Opposition David Cameron to discuss the proposals discussed by John Redwood on BBC TV today? I paste a link to the BBC website reporting this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/default.stm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
John Redwood is an alien...
ignore him!
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Since the wt directive was enacted into English law as a euro-directive I should imagine that a direct collision with the eu is a certainty. But then, conservative policy seems to be to stay in the eu but have no part with the eu. In any case, since the wt directive op-out means that 48+ is happening anyway there must be another reason. My best guess is the holiday pay part of same. The con candidate (successful) at the town I work made several references to removing the minimum wage and increasing the employees NI contrib, while reducing the employers contrib...
No change then ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By halesowen Baggie
Does anybody know what health and safety legislation he would scrap or where to get his report from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren (Daz) Fraser
Having watched the news last night (Sunday 12.08), a report is due to be released on Friday 17.08.
My understanding of the news bulletin is that the Conservative Leader will then make a decision as to what can and cannot be done, subject to being in line with the other party policies.
Previous party leaders also looked at making life for small business easier (less red tape) if they came to power.
Personally I cannot see Trade Unions or other interested parties allowing a watering down of any H&S compliance for any size business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I suspect that this initiative is more about the Conservative party trying to ingratiate themselves with disaffected tory supporters rather than any real substance.
In reality I doubt that many would argue that there is too much 'red tape' in today's business world. The government tends to introduce new legislation as a means of controlling essentially social problems, rather than look at evaluating what is already in existence and how to improve it. Hence a plethora of regulations now exist, many of which do little, if anything, to ease the burden of which it has been designed.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
Since Cameron was the politician that put down the Early Day Motion to hold up the new CDM legislation (but then failed to turn up to support it when it was debated) he clearly has health and safety in his sights in his quest to relieve business of 'red tape'.
Clearly the existing death roll in work related accidents is more than acceptable to him and a few more are a price worth paying.
So we need to be quite robust in advancing our views and if he is not deflected from this policy then the risks to the health of working people if a Conservative Government is elected should be fully exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Sorry but my suspicions are not anti-Cameron on this occassion - I think Redwood is playing to the gallery he thinks exists as a hopeful shot at re-igniting his own leadership bid. Loose cannon is too mild a phrase to describe him. Lunatic looking for an asylum might do so but that is a personal viewpoint.
What does worry me though is that the labour party has probably managed the Pirbright laboratories in a manner leading to the decay of systems and yet people think they are worthy of our vote. But for now I think we should leave the quasi political attacks in the waste bin of history.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
To my eternal damnation, probably, I was once heavily involved in back room politics. This is just Redwood sounding off. They will never reverse EU led H&S policy. apart from anything else they can't remove the common law duty of care... and the good old no win no fee guys (probably card carrying Tories) will have a field day. Finally do you really think any sane society would elect Cameron as a leader? Sorry monitors if this is too political!
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Whilst agreeing with most of the above posts; Readwood is barmy & cameron is a no hoper.
I've stopped visiting this site as I find the Moderators too heavy handed and have turned the forums into boredom central.
Yet here we have politics and personal abuse all on the same thread and not a mod in site! Can I take it that if Mods agree with the sentiments then the AUGs are ignored??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jackw
And who thinks the current version is any better?
H&S law will remain as it is and all public proclamations are likely to be a smokescreen to hide current imperfections - Witness the Hain proclamation on construction deaths.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
It is still no reason not to take the opportunity to press our case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IOSH Moderator
All,
The moderators have no objections to forum members discussing this particular subject as it is both topical and has implications for health & safety.
Please be aware however that one persons biting satire is another persons libel.
For this reason, posters are reminded that both personal attacks and complaints will be removed under AUG's 2 and 4 respectively
Regards
Jonathan Breeze
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Other than reference to the Working Time Directive, there seems to be no specific piece of H&S legislation identified as being in the firing line yet. We need to wait for the forthcoming report and then see what Mr Cameron makes of it before rushing in on this one.
There is always room for looking at existing legislation to see whether it is serving a good purpose, hindering progress or both. Fortunately we can still do this in the UK - until the vetos are removed and we become part of the United States of Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ken
Agreed that there is always room for improvement but I am concerned when both sides use H&S as a political football to be used as and when necessary for the capture of a particular interest group. The call concerning construction deaths seems also to typify this.
My fear on this latter one is that the role of such schemes as CSCS and CHAS etc will be seen as the answer - only in bigger doses. There are many problems in our industry that the current great and good have failed to resolve. Perhaps the answer is that the wrong people are looking for solutions and those offered are incorrect. Time for change methinks!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,
Yes, they want to repeal all or part of the WTR; and this in the EU member state with one of the weakest implementations of the original directive.
Just as an aside; what do you think is the role played by JC and the black-top tabloids in all this? Entertainment, or a deep political agenda? Preparing the ground for yet another Tory assault on working conditions?
And anyway, nothing to worry about at the moment as the latest polls seem to indicate that my cat has a better chance of being the next PM than David Cameron does,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
yes John but that's the problem. If the Tories don't get in power, Gordon Brown won't allow a referendum on the EU constitution and then we won't have any say in any H&S laws full stop. The Tories would at least allow us to have a say in UK legislation because we would remain a nation.
EU laws are all about control and prohibition whereas we have all been used to "reasonably practicable", "pracicable" and far more rarely "absolute". This will be wiped out and I think that is where the Tory mentality of challenging H&S laws is coming from.
Allow adults to be adults don't prohibit - assess!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
The European aspect has been introduced, so why not look at this in its own right. The UK has just won a case about the term reasonably practicable. It is a fact that the UK is ahead of many European nations when it comes to H&S and the practicability stage we are in. So why are we seemingly geting hot under the collar about something the Tories want to do. Our problem is with the British press and thier seemingly constant attach of the wisdom of making H&S law. Whenever their is an accident the victim always seeks redress under the law so I say you can't have your apple and eat it. Sensible law changes yes when they are required but just to gain the political limelight is another matter. The Tories are trying to catch up ground if you believe the opinion poles published recently, remember there are quite large margins of orror involved so can't be relied on to much. So my view is this is just a bit of political hot air so don't get to wound up about it and just keep on pleading the real mesage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
I think on the EU front the Tories have cornered themselves by fielding so many eurosceptic MEP's they can only whinge from the sidelines rather than participate and improve the legislation and they have to hold to the notion that there are only huge numbers of bad EU laws and nothing good comes from there.
Labour and the Lib Dems have MEPs who actively contribute to the legislative process. Indeed I put a post on this forum where Glenis Willmott MEP is consulting on future H&S legislation now.
So we have our chance, or is it better to wait until it is done and dusted before we grumble into our beer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Yes David and if we had a vote on the EU constitution and stopped the EU legislating for Britain we would once again have the chance of introducing our own laws democratically. We could then once again have H&S laws introduced by consultation papers, HSC/HSE involvement and a heavy voice from IOSH/BSC/RoSPA etc. At the moment some unelected politician decides he/she or it, wants to make a name for themselves and introduce another change which is pure control freakery.
It was only last year when IOSH were "ALLOWED" an input into the legislating procedure and even now they can (and will) ignore us if they so choose. These law makers are not accountable to anyone and so they can ignore the HSE and our excellent H&S laws at will.
The only decent laws to come out of the EU were the 6 pack and that was in the days when we had a full veto and as such the EU had to listen!!
As an international specialist I can quite honestly say that HaSaWA 1974 and other UK H&S laws up to circa 1994 were the best, most open, most adult legislation in Europe. Now we are on the slippery slope of prohibition.
Once we have our legislation back under our control we can then debate the Tories/Labour/Lib Dem stances on H&S. Until then it's a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy
As an international specialist I can quite honestly say that HaSaWA 1974 and other UK H&S laws up to circa 1994 were the best, most open, most adult legislation in Europe. Now we are on the slippery slope of prohibition.
Mainly due to the amount of amatuers we have allowed to enter our profession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
It is my understanding that The Single European Act (SEA) of 1987 extended the scope of Qualified Majority Voting, mainly to cover single market measures, and made QMV the voting method for new areas of Community activity,namely trans-European networks, education and public health. It also extended the use of QMV in the areas of the environment and Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
One of the new areas of QMV introduced by the
The Single European Act (SEA) of 1987 was the Article 118A, "Adoption of minimum requirements for health and safety of workers"
It appears to be inaccurate to imply that the EC Framework & Daughter Directives were agreed when UK had a veto upto 1994, as QMV for adoption of minimum requirements for health and safety of workers was introduced in 1986/87.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
Forgive my cycnicism. I do recall one Michael Hessletine putting forward a "burdens on business" initiative to rid business of red tape. The current government has its plans and a "regulatory reform" agenda. In fact every recent government seems to have had a try.
As far as history shows, all of these initiatives seem to end up making very little difference or actually INCREASING bureacracy (in my view). If they were so successful, why do we always seem to need a new one???
Perhaps this is all just a storm in a teacup????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
They need to "reduce the regulatory burden" because many of the UK businesses are barely capable of understanding that they have to pay tax on profit, let alone not kill the workforce as well !
Let us face it, most employers hate any legislation that means money goes anywhere other than their bank account, and to have to pay for others ppe has been sticking in their throat for decades (we'll ignore the fact that inevitably it is the employee that pays the cost anyway)
I promise not to mention the domestic equipment business that moved production abroad to save a mint in costs, made the unit for half the price and kept the sale price the same.....
Sorry, I'm a cynic.
lower costs = removing essential health and safety protection and lowering wages. Not to mention removing many measures designed to offer some sort of employment protection....
So, that's all three major parties then ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I seem to remember that, back in the late 1980s when we were having numerous fires associated with foam-filled furniture, support from Europe for legislation on this was not forthcoming - said to be due to pressure from European manufacturers. Fortunately our Government of the day ignored this and gave us the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations. Without the vetos and submerged in the proposed 'United States of Europe' this would be an example of how UK health and safety (and other)interests could be treated.
Concern has also been expressed above with regard to UK jobs. Do people really think that, with the control of legislation, money supply and the economy within European control, that UK jobs, wages and health and safety standards will be improved?
At least, at present, our Government or opposition can (if they wish) look for what is and isn't in the interest and well-being of our workforce and economy and seek to take or propose appropriate action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Does anyone know what Redwood actually proposed this morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Yes
It was on the radio when he was interviewed.
Nothing like the radio and labour spun version to which the president responded.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
May I congratulate the President on the robust statementput on on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
As a lunchtime exercise, I have just done a word search on all 210 pages of the policy document ‘Freeing Britain to Compete: Equipping the UK for Globalisation’ and I can only find seven references to Health and Safety. The most significant is on page 60, which states “We advise improving the risk assessment regime in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, to make responses more proportionate”.
From a strategy point of view, it may be worth us finding out exactly what the Conservative Party is seeking in the form of their H&S Policy as we could well assist them with a solution that does not need any extensive Parliamentary time to be spent on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Well said Arran. As I have posted on the members forum that I am concerned that the president's response was based not on the report text but on the press and media statements of what was in the report. Spun well it seems to produce an anti-conservative kick back.
We do well to check sources before comment. Its a lesson I continue to learn.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
As I understand it the IOSH President has only responded to the proposal to repeal the Working Time regs and as this is in Redwoods report she is accurate on that. I don't entirely agree with her as I don't think the WT Regs have any real impact anyway but nevertheless she was correct in the assumption that Redwood suggests getting rid of those regs.
Far more interesting is the suggestion to "improve the risk assessment regime in the HSWA to make responses more proportionate". It's a shame that they don't explain this more but I think the key part is the last 5 words. Response's from whom, employers or regulators?
Perhaps IOSH should invite Redwoods group to expand upon this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/ECPGcomplete.pdf"We advise improving the risk assessment regime in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, to make responses more proportionate." Demonstrates lack of understanding of the risk assessment regime, or possibly that business is being pushed by regulators toward excessive documentation. Less about H&S deregulation in this document than was foreshadowed - proposing scrapping Working Time Regs. p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By R Joe
I caught John Redwood's short interview on BBC this morning. The essence of what he said was 'less essay writing and 'ticking checklists', the clear suggestion being that H&S has all too often become bureaucracy led - isn't that one of the key points of the revised CDM Regs? At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I sometimes think we are so close to our chosen field that we can't see the wood for the trees, or control our reactions to anything that seems to present a challenge. Whether we like it or not what he said was a common perception, and something that we, as well as the HSE, have to recognise and face up to. And, as an H&S practitioner for over 20 years, I feel that we do need less - but better - H&S legislation. We are proponents of 'sensible health and safety' but what does this actually amount to in practice? Just how radical is our thinking and stance?
RJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
As a prectising CDM C it is a lot about enthusing designers to develop their designs to remove or reduce H&S risks to the constructors, users and maintainers of buildings and structures and to make safe eventual demolition.
I have had a varied response to this but in general they have accepted this approach. The big tests will be if they are able to go back to clients of they are asked to do the impossible or compromise safety with their designs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
"As I understand it the IOSH President has only responded to the proposal to repeal the Working Time regs and as this is in Redwoods report she is accurate on that. I don't entirely agree with her as I don't think the WT Regs have any real impact anyway but nevertheless she was correct in the assumption that Redwood suggests getting rid of those regs"
And since the working hours part of those regs are widely ignored, the only part that is worth repealing (from the employers point of view) is the holiday pay part/s.
In any case, it will almost certainly lead to a clash between the government and the EU, in which the governments only response will be to threaten to leave the EU. Which everyone knows they won't do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
There are two points that I wish to answer.
The first made by David Brede is that I work for one of the largest architecture practices within the UK and we have made the policy decision of engaging the design (hazard and risk) management process as early as possible. In order that others who potentially influence our design for cost or other reasons are clearly taking on a design role and this includes the client.
Getting back to the main theme of this thread. I have read some of the policy document and whilst the political party concerned is citing poor H&S legislation in relation to "Risk Assessment and Employment Law", arguably the cause of this problem is inadequate OH&S management practice and H&S law is only there when things go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Brede
Quite right Arran, a lot of people are waking up to the notion that they are in CDM terms 'designers' and have a legal role to fill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By craig b hartley
in reading the document the conservatives have explained it like this,1 what legislation was intended to do and 2why it may be a good idea to reform it. there answer to
point 1 to improve safety!
point2 inspection regime has no sense of proportion,failing to consider context and business implications.
now i can see why they haven't been in power for 10years and long may it continue in my opinion, an absolute disregard for human life
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
To be fair, the need to consider context and business implications (rightly or wrongly) are already in the UK legislation within the context of 'so far as reasonably practicable'. The problems seem to arise in the application of the legal duties (eg by the over-zealous and the over-cautious or by those using 'health and safety' to avoid risk and its possible implications rather than controlling it) - ie within H&S management and, sometimes, enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By craig b hartley
hi david
i do agree with you that some people would rather stop a task other than look how best to control it, but surely that comes down to incompetency within people in the profession, maybe better training, don't know the answer personally. the other side to that are the 1's who reduce the risk due to pressures from within, can't have it both ways
but unfortunatly in reading the document and the companies that they state within it are they asking the right people. as lets say accountants will always count the pennies rather than the risk to life.
with politicians always trying to court big business what value is getting put on human life thse days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Conservative Plans to repeal H&S legislation
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.